D&D 5E Ability Check origins at your table

[Swarmkeeper]

Honestly, "I think he's lying" seems to me like it's skipping over it as well since it's the player's determination of how their PC feels rather than looking for any evidence that might have them rendering that judgment. So, no check necessary, I guess?

The player is in full control over how their character thinks, acts, and speaks - as 5e defines roleplaying. If they think he's lying, that's what they think. What a character thinks and what is true in the world can be different, however.

Now, is he lying? That's something that an Insight check might answer.

 

[billd91]

The player is in full control over how their character thinks, acts, and speaks - as 5e defines roleplaying. If they think he's lying, that's what they think. What a character thinks and what is true in the world can be different, however.

Yeah, no kidding. That's never been in doubt.

Now, is he lying? That's something that an Insight check might answer.

You're telling me something we all already know.
I'm just pointing out that "I think he's lying" isn't really a question answered by an insight check because it's not a question at all. So for this particular discussion - asking for a check vs narratively describing a reason to make a check - it's really tangential. If a player really was seeking to use their insight skill against the barkeep (or whomever), it's clear to me that their statement "I think he's lying" isn't really giving me, in the fiction, a reason to have them roll it. "I would like to use insight on him" would be MUCH clearer, in fact, even if less narratively descriptive.

 

[iserith]

okay walk me through how this works... didn't this start when I asked "Hey what if I call for a skill check" and you said you didn't want the game interacted just as a mechanic, but now you are saying it can't be just a mechanic?!? so what is it when I call for an insight check?

Another way to think about it is that, as a player, if your goal is success on a given action, rolling a d20 isn't a great approach because the die is so swingy. So as a player, you want to avoid rolling.

But how do you avoid the roll? Since there are up to two criteria to whether an ability check is called for at all, you want to set about removing one or both of those criteria. Those criteria are: (1) the action has an uncertain outcome and/or (2) there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If 1 or 1 and 2 are removed from consideration, there's no check, and chances are good that you just succeed automatically.

Can you always remove the uncertainty of the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure? No, because sometimes you can't control for those things. But where you could, arguably you should try since that's the best approach to succeeding, and that's going to be a matter of paying attention to the DM's description of the environment and taking action accordingly.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah, no kidding. That's never been in doubt.

I'm glad you think so, too!

You're telling me something we all already know.
I'm just pointing out that "I think he's lying" isn't really a question answered by an insight check because it's not a question at all. So for this particular discussion - asking for a check vs narratively describing a reason to make a check - it's really tangential. If a player really was seeking to use their insight skill against the barkeep (or whomever), it's clear to me that their statement "I think he's lying" isn't really giving me, in the fiction, a reason to have them roll it. "I would like to use insight on him" would be MUCH clearer, in fact, even if less narratively descriptive.

So, to maintain the narrative description, maybe something like "I think he's lying, do I notice any tells?"

 

[billd91]

So, to maintain the narrative description, maybe something like "I think he's lying, do I notice any tells?"

Now that would get the question across.
I find that sometimes the description can be clearer, sometimes going straight to the mechanic is. That's one reason I'm not particularly doctrinaire about it. Then the players can pick the terms they feel more comfortable communicating with.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm playing in a Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign right now and we're in a scenario where there's a bunch of magical puzzles. Fair enough. Not really my bag, but, I'll live with it. In one of the puzzles, you have to throw a rock further than a certain point. Now, there's lots of rocks sitting in the pile. So, I turn to the DM, and I say, "Ok, I keep throwing rocks until I throw if further than that point. There's no real limit to rocks is there?"

The Dm then forced me to keep rerolling over and over again, until he finally got fed up and had the NPC push the furthest rock we threw over the line all the while giving me the side eye about how stupid we were being.

I know which part you refer to, as I ran than section just under a year ago and I feel the above is a failure of two things.
(a) That section within the AP could have been better written both from a roleplaying perspective and from a DM advice PoV; and
(b) It does feel the above DM failed himself in that situation. Now we all make mistakes so I'm not bashing the DM here.

To note each of those rocks weighed at minimum 500 pounds, so throwing them as is, was NEVER going to and should NEVER work, especially against your opponents in that scene. It seems that certain information was not communicated to the table.

It feels a shame when someone runs an old AP without doing some internet browsing for ideas and advice because that section with the magical hedge-maze desperately needed it and as always the collective DMs of this world DO provide it.

 

[Oofta]

It's a distinction that makes a difference...just not to you.

As opposed to the prescribed pattern you prefer? The referee presents a bit of information, the player assumes a roll is necessary, assumes what skill is applicable, rolls, then reports the result. The difference is we'd prefer the player not make those assumptions, to not skip the conversation. That's all. It drives me crazy when players make those assumptions, skip the conversation, and just roll.

You get that making assumptions is generally bad, right? That's why it matters. Further, players take the assumptions they've made, then act on them...and further assume that all of that is what the referee would have wanted them to do.

Our preferences are different than yours. Sorry it doesn't make sense to you. But that has no effect on our preferences. Sorry, but I honestly don't get the impression that several of us explaining it all again is going to make any difference at all.

First, saying "DM may I" is different from "I do X" in the knowledge that the DM can tell you it doesn't work and may or may not call for a role is along the lines of the Jeapordy game show requiring people to phrase their response in the form of a question. The result is the same.

I have no formal expectations of action declaration. Ask, describe, roll. Doesn't matter to me as long as it's clear.

If it's not clear we'll clarify. It almost never happens and no formal structure is going to change that.

I had a question on how people described actions. I keep thinking something other than the "not clear/making assumptions" which I don't see anything fixing would be clarified.

Unfortunately, I'd get even odds of this happening instead:

DM: "... the door is locked"
Player: "11 to open"
DM: "You silently pick the lock but it fails, what do..."
Player, interrupting: "HEY! I didn't say I was going to pick the lock, that roll was for me trying to pry the latch open! Since that failed, I'm going to pick the lock. Sheesh, why are you telling me what my character is doing anyway?"
DM: (sigh)

That's why I prefer to let the player describe their actions first, then wait for me to ask for a roll. I find it's a lot cleaner way to handle the story, and it avoids certain arguments.

DM: "... the door is locked"
Player: "I'm going to try to quietly pick the lock"
DM: "Roll a Dexterity, Thieves Tools check."
Player: "Nice, eighteen!"
DM: "And now a Dexterity, Stealth check."
Player: "Uh-oh. Nine."
DM: "You open the lock, but you hear a low growl from the other side..."

Yeah, that has never happened and if it did I'd be having a chat with the player. If it's ever unclear, which happens now and then, I'll clarify.

I just don't see a formal approach making any difference.

 

[Oofta]

Now that would get the question across.
I find that sometimes the description can be clearer, sometimes going straight to the mechanic is. That's one reason I'm not particularly doctrinaire about it. Then the players can pick the terms they feel more comfortable communicating with.

Except a lot of times it's not even "Is he lying?" Frequently it's just getting a general vibe. They may be telling only part of the truth, they may be nervous, they may be bored.

Asking "are they lying" implies that the only thing you care about is are they telling the truth. If I ask for an insight check I don't want just are they lying, I want to know what I can tell about their emotional state in general.

It's the same with knowledge checks. Not only are you asking a question instead of declaring an action, I'm not necessarily asking for one specific thing.

 

[Composer99]

am I just not as used to this as you guys? I have what I call 'bad days' and when I am having one don't want to have to use the immersive words.

As a bit of preamble, I think it's purist nonsense to use pejorative language like "button-mashing" when referring to engaging with mechanics and all that. After all, the whole point of playing a game is to have mechanics; otherwise we're just playing make-believe where one of the people playing gets to decide almost everything that happens, and where's the fun in that?

That being said, from the perspective of DM, it's easier for me to adjudicate player activity during gameplay when they refer to the fictional state and also describe their goal, approach, and (if it's necessary) their motive within the fiction - that is, what they're doing, how they're doing it, and sometimes, why they're doing it (if that's important for adjudication). Only referring to mechanics is less helpful - indeed, I might not be able to adjudicate the activity at all!

With that information in hand, it's much easier to know if a player needs to roll a check for their character or not, as well as what sort of check to roll. Even when it's (probably) obvious what check is called for in a situation, I'd rather players wait before I call for a check to roll, since their description of their approach (in particular) might very well lend itself to granting automatic success.

For instance, suppose a player in my game is exploring a room in a castle. In the room are various furnishings, including a big wooden desk. Let's say that hidden in the desk is a key, tucked away in a drawer and affixed to the underside of the desktop by, I don't know, some kind of wax, let's say. The key isn't "mission-critical" for exploring the castle or completing any quests therein, but does grant access to sweet loot. The key is impossible to find by just relying on passive Perception because it's out of sight.

If that player just says they "roll Investigation to search the room" or that they "search the room for hidden things" (both of which are close enough together to make the same judgement call), I'll have them roll an Intelligence (Investigation) check. Maybe they'll find the key, maybe not - that's the risk of hurriedly searching the room. (If the player tells me they'll thoroughly search the room, with all the risks of taking extra time to do so, they'll probably find the key.) But a player who engages with the fictional details is more likely to find the key:

• If the player makes a point of telling me they'll search the desk, that's going to give them advantage on the check.
• If the player makes a point of telling me that they'll open the drawers and sweep their hands along the top of each drawer, they'll find the key with no check required.

I don't think that's "looking for the magic words": there's always a chance the character will find the key, regardless of how engaged or not they are with the fictional state, but they improve their chance of doing so if they can either (a) take the time to thoroughly search the room (albeit with the risk of, say, a random encounter with patrolling guards) or (b) make a point of describing what they do in such a way as to eliminate the risk of overlooking the key.

 

[Hussar]

So instead of "Can I pick the lock?" it's "My rogue attempts to pick the lock (with her thieves' tools)".

I guess I just don't understand the, in my view, needless pedantry here. You know what the player is trying to do. The player knows what he or she wants to do. Does it really matter that they phrase it as a question rather than a statement? As in, do you actually care?

I have to admit, I would find this level of nit picking just hair tearingly frustrating as a player. It's frustrating enough when players do it, but, when DM's get into this level of pedantry... I just can't understand how that's adding any fun to the game.